Models don’t show the conditions that created Sandy increase as climate warms.

Sandy was a bizarre and devastating storm. But is it something we can expect to see more often as the climate warms? That’s the (more than) $50 billion question.

Pinning down future hurricane behavior has proved difficult, but the evidence currently indicates (maybe) fewer but (likely) larger hurricanes. It wasn’t Sandy’s size that made it so unusual, though. There was a reason we had to start inventing names like “superstorm” to replace “hurricane”—Sandy left the tropics but then veered landward instead of spinning off into the Atlantic. Atmospheric circulation normally guides these storms to the east, but a stubborn high-pressure zone parked in the Atlantic blocked the way.

There have been a few of these “blocking highs” that garnered attention recently, including one that caused the 2010 Russian heat wave and was partly responsible for disastrous flooding in Pakistan. Some research has indicated that these extreme events are already increasingly common as a result of climate change, though this is still debated. It’s been suggested that, in particular, frequent blocking highs could be a result of the warming in the Arctic. If this is the case, perhaps the freak conditions that made Sandy into a “superstorm” could appear more often.

A group of researchers have probed this question by inspecting the latest generation of climate models to see if they might simulate more storms like Sandy in the coming decades. They compared model simulations of the end of this century to the present day, looking at how frequently they exhibited each of the conditions that led to Sandy’s behavior.

Those conditions include that blocking high over the Atlantic and the eddy-like motion of the jet stream that sets it up. This motion also includes the southward excursion of the jet stream over the continental US that pulled Sandy directly ashore rather than at a shallow angle. This path focused Sandy’s fury and maximized its tremendous storm surge.

In the model simulations, which utilize a high emissions scenario resulting in a large amount of warming, westward blowing winds like the ones that tugged Sandy landward actually became a little less common. One reason for this is that as the climate warms, models predict the jet stream will creep toward the Arctic, making it a touch less likely to wander as far south as it did during Sandy.

So what about the blocking highs over the North Atlantic? Yet again, most of the 22 models used showed a small decrease—counter to the hypothesis that Arctic warming could be driving an increase. It’s at least partly a result of the poleward migration of the jet stream in the models.

Of course, this is no guarantee that there won’t be another Sandy. Hurricanes in general are still thought to increase in strength. But as far as the conditions that turn those hurricanes into post-tropical cyclones capable of slamming the Northeast, models give us no reason to expect Sandy is the “new normal.”

Higher sea levels made Sandy’s storm surge a little more damaging than it would have been a century ago, and warmer ocean water could have strengthened Hurricane Sandy. But if this analysis is correct, climate change deserves no blame for the most important conditions that made Sandy a “superstorm." That would be good news for the folks living on the coast.

I do hope we decide to take a chance one day on hurricane busting weapons.

What exactly do you intend to "bust" in a hurricane? They're basically a heat transfer mechanism for moving an excess of energy from the equator to the poles.

Early work suggested that you might be able to force the clouds to precipitate out faster while over water. However, if you do this you still leave the thermal imbalance that was driving the storm in the first place. That may eventually build into a single storm large enough to overcome your "busting." Not to mention the amount of material/energy one would need to expend would be astronomical.

It may prove feasible in the future to preferentially seed parts of the storm to gently nudge its path. However, that's well down the road and we'd better be damned sure we know where we're going to push a storm before we try.

I do hope we decide to take a chance one day on hurricane busting weapons.

The question would be around the unintended consequences such as: do large storms act as an atmospheric pressure valve that we would lose? The alternative is to prepare/build properly for storms in other coastal areas. Oh, right, short attention spans of the populace and officials screw that up.

I was in PR during Hurricane George in Florida during Hurricane Andrew and stuck here in NJ now including during Storm Sandy.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

East Coast media bias (or population-weighted however you prefer) combined with a region that's not used to such things and that's what you get. As someone who's lived through 7 direct hits of hurricanes (including Andrew) I couldn't quite fathom it either.

However, I guess if Richter Scale 5.5 earthquake hit any of the East Coast cities everyone would freak out and the damage would be enormous in dollar figures. And I'm sure folks in L.A. wouldn't quite get what all the fuss was about either.

I was in PR during Hurricane George in Florida during Hurricane Andrew and stuck here in NJ now including during Storm Sandy.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

East Coast media bias (or population-weighted however you prefer) combined with a region that's not used to such things and that's what you get. As someone who's lived through 7 direct hits of hurricanes (including Andrew) I couldn't quite fathom it either.

However, I guess if Richter Scale 5.5 earthquake hit any of the East Coast cities everyone would freak out and the damage would be enormous in dollar figures. And I'm sure folks in L.A. wouldn't quite get what all the fuss was about either.

While not impossible (I've felt a 4.5 over here two decades ago) the lack of a major fault line running directly under the east coast makes this scenario far less likely. The San Andreas fault is the major reason why California sees earthquakes much more often and with far greater force than us east coasters.

Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Classified as the eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane and second major hurricane of the year, Sandy was a Category 3 storm at its peak intensity when it made landfall in Cuba.[1] While it was a Category 2 storm off the coast of the Northeastern United States, the storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record (as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km)).[2][3]

I was in PR during Hurricane George in Florida during Hurricane Andrew and stuck here in NJ now including during Storm Sandy.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

East Coast media bias (or population-weighted however you prefer) combined with a region that's not used to such things and that's what you get. As someone who's lived through 7 direct hits of hurricanes (including Andrew) I couldn't quite fathom it either.

However, I guess if Richter Scale 5.5 earthquake hit any of the East Coast cities everyone would freak out and the damage would be enormous in dollar figures. And I'm sure folks in L.A. wouldn't quite get what all the fuss was about either.

While not impossible (I've felt a 4.5 over here two decades ago) the lack of a major fault line running directly under the east coast makes this scenario far less likely. The San Andreas fault is the major reason why California sees earthquakes much more often and with far greater force than us east coasters.

I would characterize someone who has lived through seven direct hit hurricanes as a bit of a slow learner.

The big problem with Sandy was that it banged right into an arm of the jet stream that was in an unusual position. That sent it skittering off to the left. And that limb would not have been there if not for the warming Arctic.

Maybe things will go on to change more, but in that one case, we can blame global warming for the particular deflection.

That may well be. However, larger hurricanes tend to not be the most devastating type. Andrew was a very tightly wound storm that caused the most damage of any natural disaster in the US until Katrina.

Large storms can create a large storm surge and that's what did most of the damage with Sandy - it wasn't even hurricane strength when it went ashore. If New York and New Jersey had dunes and intercoastal waterways like we do along the South East there would not have been nearly so much damage.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

Sandy is the second-most costly storm in US history. From Wikipedia:

Quote:

A total of 24 U.S. states were in some way affected by Sandy. The hurricane caused tens of billions of dollars in damage in the United States, destroyed thousands of homes, left millions without electric service, and caused 72 direct deaths in eight states

I was in PR during Hurricane George in Florida during Hurricane Andrew and stuck here in NJ now including during Storm Sandy.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

I live on long island. The problem with sandy was not its winds. It had the storm surge of a cat 2 storm but only had the winds of barely a cat 1. It was the storm surge the flooding, and the rain that was the biggest part of sandy.

Remember the NYC area is a like a huge funnel so it takes less for flooding to be a problem.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

Sandy is the second-most costly storm in US history. ...

Again, it was so damaging only because the coastline wasn't prepared for the storm surge - not because the storm itself was so powerful (as compared to other massive hurricanes like Camille, Andrew, Katrina, etc.).

I was in PR during Hurricane George in Florida during Hurricane Andrew and stuck here in NJ now including during Storm Sandy.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

East Coast media bias (or population-weighted however you prefer) combined with a region that's not used to such things and that's what you get. As someone who's lived through 7 direct hits of hurricanes (including Andrew) I couldn't quite fathom it either.

However, I guess if Richter Scale 5.5 earthquake hit any of the East Coast cities everyone would freak out and the damage would be enormous in dollar figures. And I'm sure folks in L.A. wouldn't quite get what all the fuss was about either.

While not impossible (I've felt a 4.5 over here two decades ago) the lack of a major fault line running directly under the east coast makes this scenario far less likely. The San Andreas fault is the major reason why California sees earthquakes much more often and with far greater force than us east coasters.

I would characterize someone who has lived through seven direct hit hurricanes as a bit of a slow learner.

LOL - I guess I could say the same about anyone that's ever lived through a blizzard or an earthquake. To each his own I guess.

The sum total of damage from those seven storms has been the loss of an aluminum screen enclosure that we really didn't want anyways and maybe 10 days total without power (we were lucky with Andrew not to be down in the Homestead area). If you're prepared with 2 weeks food and water then there's not really too much to fear. You evacuate if you're told to do so. Otherwise you wait it out.

edit: p.s. I up-voted this comment and since it's aimed at me any downvotes are uncalled for.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

Sandy is the second-most costly storm in US history. ...

Again, it was so damaging only because the coastline wasn't prepared for the storm surge - not because the storm itself was so powerful (as compared to other massive hurricanes like Camille, Andrew, Katrina, etc.).

Flooding in the southern United States – common or not – usually does not involve basements, tunnels, and other underground infrastructure. That and the fact that the NYC metro area has a much higher property value than most other locations in the country is what made it so costly.

That may well be. However, larger hurricanes tend to not be the most devastating type. Andrew was a very tightly wound storm that caused the most damage of any natural disaster in the US until Katrina.

Large storms can create a large storm surge and that's what did most of the damage with Sandy - it wasn't even hurricane strength when it went ashore. If New York and New Jersey had dunes and intercoastal waterways like we do along the South East there would not have been nearly so much damage.

and if it had hit the coast of antarctica it would have caused no dollars in damage. Storm surge and water damage are usually the most costly portions of MOST hurricanes or tropical storms. and as quoted above Sandy was the second most damaging hurricane/tropical storm on record.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

Sandy is the second-most costly storm in US history. ...

Again, it was so damaging only because the coastline wasn't prepared for the storm surge - not because the storm itself was so powerful (as compared to other massive hurricanes like Camille, Andrew, Katrina, etc.).

Flooding in the southern United States – common or not – usually does not involve basements, tunnels, and other underground infrastructure. That and the fact that the NYC metro area has a much higher property value than most other locations in the country is what made it so costly.

Certainly there is a higher density of underground infrastructure in New York City than in most parts of the Southeast. Namely because, well, we have floods and plan ahead to avoid having our generators underwater...

That's not a superstorm, it just hit an unprepared area. The odd thing in all this situation is the unusual high pressure system, which steered the storm to said area.

in Puerto Rico, if we had a Cat 1 hurricane, we would have school and work the next day. Since we've learned to turn off the whole electric system (if you're on life support, it's a given you have a generator), we get fewer failures, thus we'd get electricity, the next day, too. Plus, all of our houses are made of concrete, not wood and carton. We just watch coconuts fly.

We only get crippled if we were hit by a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. Since we get no fatalities, most people pray for a strong hurricane, so they can get some free days off, and everybody drinks rum and beer through the storm.

Also besides the funnel of the NYC area the storm surge hit at high tide. All of this caused it to have the flooding of a category 2 hurricane. remember hurricanes category is determined by its wind speeds.

Unfortunately, the Saffir-Simpson scale is wholly inadequate for planning for response to hurricane. It only tells you the one minute wind speed. It doesn't tell you the area those winds are spread over, how far it is likely to retain significant power inland, or, most importantly, the amount of rain that comes along with the storm.

That's not a superstorm, it just hit an unprepared area. The odd thing in all this situation is the unusual high pressure system, which steered the storm to said area.

in Puerto Rico, if we had a Cat 1 hurricane, we would have school and work the next day. Since we've learned to turn off the whole electric system (if you're on life support, it's a given you have a generator), we get fewer failures, thus we'd get electricity, the next day, too. Plus, all of our houses are made of concrete, not wood and carton. We just watch coconuts fly.

We only get crippled if we were hit by a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. Since we get no fatalities, most people pray for a strong hurricane, so they can get some free days off, and everybody drinks rum and beer through the storm.

So clearly the Federal government should have spent the money to help New York prepare for storms instead of investing billions in economic aid to PR, since you guys pray for strong hurricanes;)

That's not a superstorm, it just hit an unprepared area. The odd thing in all this situation is the unusual high pressure system, which steered the storm to said area.

in Puerto Rico, if we had a Cat 1 hurricane, we would have school and work the next day. Since we've learned to turn off the whole electric system (if you're on life support, it's a given you have a generator), we get fewer failures, thus we'd get electricity, the next day, too. Plus, all of our houses are made of concrete, not wood and carton. We just watch coconuts fly.

We only get crippled if we were hit by a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. Since we get no fatalities, most people pray for a strong hurricane, so they can get some free days off, and everybody drinks rum and beer through the storm.

Sadly, I can't upvote you more than once.

I'm not so sure I hope for a 4 or a 5 (after seeing what Andrew did to Homestead Air Force Base - quite prepared). But you're quite right that a Cat 1 or 2 shouldn't do anything more than make a lot of noise to a prepared area.

So the storm wasn't "super" it was just incredibly out of the norm.

I don't expect Boise, Idaho to be prepared for a massive storm surge. Perhaps New York shouldn't have had as much of its electrical and telecom infrastructure below sea level but I wouldn't expect them to be as prepared for surge as Florida or Puerto Rico.

Which is why we should stop providing cheap flood insurance for beach dwellings. It wasn't a market failure for the insurance market to shun these homes. It was common sense.

Subsidization of risky behaviors results in risky behaviors.

Shall we apply this logic to contraception?

Seat belts have the same effect. If people think something makes them safer, consciously or unconsciously they'll be willing to take bigger risks with the safety device in place. Usually the safety device still does far more good than harm.

In this case, however, the insurance is only a net around someone's pocketbook, arguably the thing that matters least. The real property, their lives, the rescue efforts as a result, etc. are provided no protection from the real danger, the storms. In the case of contraception, it protects from the physical results of the same things it may incentivize.

That's not a superstorm, it just hit an unprepared area. The odd thing in all this situation is the unusual high pressure system, which steered the storm to said area.

in Puerto Rico, if we had a Cat 1 hurricane, we would have school and work the next day. Since we've learned to turn off the whole electric system (if you're on life support, it's a given you have a generator), we get fewer failures, thus we'd get electricity, the next day, too. Plus, all of our houses are made of concrete, not wood and carton. We just watch coconuts fly.

We only get crippled if we were hit by a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. Since we get no fatalities, most people pray for a strong hurricane, so they can get some free days off, and everybody drinks rum and beer through the storm.

IT was a superstorm it was a noreaster combined with a hurricane. Some places got 30 inches of snow from the storm, some places in NJ andfmd got 11 - 15 inches of rain. The NYC area had the flooding of a cat 2 storm . Here on long island we had a storm surge of 13 feet.

I was in PR during Hurricane George in Florida during Hurricane Andrew and stuck here in NJ now including during Storm Sandy.

Sandy was like a baby in diapers compared to George & Andrew it was a freaking storm not even a hurricane but the media up here make it sound like it was the next Katrina.

East Coast media bias (or population-weighted however you prefer) combined with a region that's not used to such things and that's what you get. As someone who's lived through 7 direct hits of hurricanes (including Andrew) I couldn't quite fathom it either.

However, I guess if Richter Scale 5.5 earthquake hit any of the East Coast cities everyone would freak out and the damage would be enormous in dollar figures. And I'm sure folks in L.A. wouldn't quite get what all the fuss was about either.

Irene was barely still a tropical storm when it hit us and destroyed billions of dollars in homes, roads, bridges, and farmland. Maybe the issue is with us and our numeric scales not being able to convey the true damage these events can cause?